From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jul 19, 2002
820 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Summary

affirming concurrent minimum mandatory sentences under Section 775.087

Summary of this case from Wilchcombe v. State

Opinion

Nos. 3D00-3250, 3D00-2961.

June 26, 2002. Certification Denied July 19, 2002.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marc Schumacher, Judge.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Manuel Alvarez, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Erin K. Zack, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GERSTEN, and RAMIREZ, JJ.


ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC


We grant the motion for rehearing, withdraw our opinion issued May 8, 2002 and substitute the following in its stead.

Renard Williams appeals his convictions and sentences on charges of armed robbery and car-jacking. Because the Florida Supreme Court rejected Williams' argument in Cruller v. State, 808 So.2d 201 (Fla. 2002), we affirm.

On cross-appeal, the State submits that the trial court erred in imposing 10 year minimum mandatory firearm possession sentences concurrently instead of consecutively as required by section 775.087(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1999). Pursuant to Mondesir v. State, 814 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), we affirm the imposition of concurrent sentences.


Summaries of

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jul 19, 2002
820 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

affirming concurrent minimum mandatory sentences under Section 775.087

Summary of this case from Wilchcombe v. State
Case details for

Williams v. State

Case Details

Full title:RENARD WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Jul 19, 2002

Citations

820 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Citing Cases

Wilchcombe v. State

We agree with Wilchcombe that the trial judge was mistaken in this regard, on the basis stated in Mondesir v.…

Sousa v. State

Although the analysis language by the House of Representatives appears to contrast with the wording of the…